Sunday, November 29, 2009

Last Updated : June 02 2010. Please let me know if you have trouble in viewing the writeup, and hearing the audio clips provided below.

A great person once said that history is written by the victor. The one who is smart and cunning, who wins and has the money, who is extremely powerful and has a throng of followers around them, who can literally decide your fate if you turn your back on them...these are the people who have the muscle to bend a true story to their liking and ultimately to their advantage.

It's all too easy to be star-struck watching the hundreds of video clips of Lance Armstrong on Youtube. Its easy to buy a bunch of books written by him and his lieutenants and believe what he invariably asks you to slurp in. And it's easier going with the fan following based around him and his brand and do exactly what they're all doing.

But it's difficult to go out against the tide and exercise some independent critical thinking skills to challenge the root of the system. We're often times lazy to explore or plainly just narrow minded to accept the other half of the story. When we believe in something, we fix it in our world view and build castles around it to protect it. But if castles are built on loose foundation, like the story of the man who built his house on mud, it will topple sooner or later. When it crashes down, that will be a mind-blowing experience.

So what is the other half of the story for those of you who haven't heard at all? Join in this post as I amass together a few facts, figures and audio clips that are absolutely critical if you are to have a "balanced knowledge" of the persona of Lance Armstrong. Some of these I collected over from some who were bold enough to only share, talk and write. By all means, this is a re-pollination of facts but done so as to never let people forget the past. So get yourself a cup of tea or coffee and focus for a while on the 'other side of the grass'.

1. "LANCE ARMSTRONG'S DOPING HISTORY" :This 50 page report challenges us to think about the curious holes in Lance Armstrong's story and his strange attitudes towards doping in general, especially given his stature in the sport. You'll be going "But Why" in little-time.

2. FLOYD LANDIS' EMAIL TESTIMONY :Floyd Landis shocked the cycling world on May 20, 2010 when he confessed to doping via email to UCI. Not only did he reveal how he took the drugs, he also implicated "master tactician" Armstrong and his seemingly evil manager Bruyneel for instructing him on how to use them. Besides, from his firm email, there is little doubt that Armstrong was also on the juice. Read the startling letter below :

3. MICHAEL ANDERSON'S TESTIMONY : Mike Anderson was not only Armstrong's former team mechanic, the man also ran errands for him, maintained his kids toys and bicycles, did groceries for him and his family and performed other manual labor around the cyclists' home property in Dripping Springs. Being so close to Armstrong, you would think he would have an intimate knowledge of Lance's homely affairs, behind closed doors. And sure he did. One interesting account, of several, involved him discovering an unmistakable box of androgen in Lance's apartment bathroom. The friendship and written contracts between both parties quickly turned sour from then on. This court account gives the full details of another one of Armstrong's broken relationships.

4. "THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT HE TOOK EPO DURING THE 1999 TOUR" : Read on through NYVelocity as reputed exercise physiologist Dr. Michael Ashenden from Australia explains the 6 positives from Armstrong's '99 urine samples with a level of detail you can only imagine. In short, there is 100% certainty that all results from the tests were valid and news stories and other allegations trying to bend this fact is simply misinformation. See Link.

5. "GROSS ERRORS IN CALCULATION OF ARMSTRONG'S CYCLING EFFICIENCY" :PhD Sports Scientists from South Africa elucidate the outright gross errors and measurement inconsistencies in Edward Coyle's battery of tests performed on Armstrong at the University of Texas. This study is suspect not just because of the errors in it, but also for the fact that the paper curiously appeared at a time when Lance Armstrong was suing SCA Promotions in court. And what else? Ed Coyle was a PAID CONSULTANT for Lance Armstrong during that time. In other words, Armstrong was paying him to manufacture some results on paper that would help him win the 5 million dollars. If that doesn't tell you anything, this study is often quoted to others to make believe that Armstrong is somehow magically way off the charts when it comes to pedaling efficiency. That's why he won the Tour de France 7 times, or so they claim. Well, consider that the latest research has blasted this myth apart with a double barreled shotgun. See Link.

6. "AND IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, ARMSTRONG WAS VISITING FERARRI FOR 3-4 DAYS AT A TIME" :One of the most honest journalists around happens to be showing honesty in return for little money. And our cancer humanitarian called him a "f**cking little troll" while the honest journalist returns only professionalism in his job. In this candid interview with David Walsh at NYVelocity, you learn a few good things going on that are nicely hidden behind the charisma of Lance and the world of pro cycling. Guaranteed that you won't get this in your Texas newspaper. See Link. Alternatively, Mike Anderson, a former personal mechanic of Lance, testified in great detail in court to the elaborate meetings between Lance and the notorious doping doctor. See Link to read the Anderson Report.

7. "WE'VE BEEN FED A PACK OF LIES" : A short interview with Walsh by NPR. Team Motorola had decided to dope like the others and this was gained from inside sources working very closely with the team. "Cycling has gone into the gutter" because of the silence of folks who knew all along the real kind of game going on behind the scenes.

8. "THE SMOKING GUN IS IN LANCE'S COVERUP..." : When your own wife knows something is seriously different as you charge up Sestriere, dragging along another EPO filled black sheep to help him win the 1999 Tour, and when she goes against all odds to come out and be sincere and forthright about the all these events from the perspective of friends who were close to Lance, it makes for a powerful take on the issue. This 1 hour revelation from Betsy Andreu as she spoke to Competitor Radio will shake the castle you had built around your view of Lance...the truthful, kind, charity-driven hero who is known to spark streaks of performance miracles over the course of many years.

9: "STEPHANIE McIlAVAIN AND HER HUSBAND WERE UNDER IMMENSE PRESSURE FROM OAKLEY..." : When your very future career is put at stake because of what you will say in court, you comply so that truth is bent in favor of the manipulator of truth. There is substantiated evidence that people involved in Lance Armstrong's circle in his early days were 'straightened' to say what Lance Armstrong wanted them to say. Fortunately, in a sea of liars, only one woman selflessly stands strong to tell the truth. Here is Betsy's interview in 5 parts with an Irish radio show host.

10. EX-FRIENDS SAY ARMSTRONG ADMITTED TO DRUG USE : NPR explores sworn statements from Armstrong's close friends and others about an incident at the Indiana hospital room where Armstrong openly discussed using performance enhancing drugs with them. Mcllavain was the only one, originally present in that room, who admitted in her deposition that she did not remember anything from the hospital room about PED's. Later, she was proven a liar by Greg Lemond, which is covered in [11].

11. "I WAS IN THAT ROOM AND I HEARD IT, I DEFINITELY WON'T LIE" :Why was Stephanie Mcllavain, an employee of Armstrong's sponsor Oakley so completely shaken and nervous in court? Because she was disgraced as a liar with irrefutable audio proof. Greg Lemond taped a phone conversation with her on September 21, 2004 without telling her, where she went on to candidly admit hearing and knowing the things Lance did in his great pharmaceutical career. That audio, presented below, is not the best in the world, but if the listener gives it the required attention and patience, many disgusting things can be learned about the state of pro cycling back in those days. At one point in the clip, she goes nonchalantly with reference to drug taking, "Its going to be funny to see what George Hincapie's baby is going to look like." Horrible.

12. "TEAM POSTAL SOLD BIKES TO RAISE MONEY FOR DOPING" : This video that went along with an exclusive Wall Street Journal interview with Floyd Landis exposes further doping practices in Team US Postal, including selling team bikes to raise cash for buying doping products. Armstrong was in the thick of it. The revelations are compelling.

And for those who're addicted to this post, and still can't get over the urge to push on and learn more...

Below is a closeup portrait of Lance Armstrong's narcissistic, temperamental personality. This, most people knew from a long time back. But even the latest news reports confirm that his is an attitude that hinges on deliberately creating conflicts and tension among people, even if its in his own team! This is his strange way of inflicting psychological wounds on people he doesn't like, his way to disintegrate an opponent.

Besides, he's also one of the smartest guys in the room, and knows very well how to get around the system. The following observations are from Cédric Vasseur, a former teammate who rode for him in Team US Postal. Credits for the quote go to the book From Lance to Landis by renowned journalist David Walsh. Every real cycling fan must have read this book at least once. Investigative journalism doesn't get better than this.

Note : This blog will always remain democratic, so feel free to voice your opinions after you have read and heard the above post.

boring old crap. claiming david walsh is an honest journalist atleast added some humor to the post. sure he probably doped, along with all his major competitors, including alberto. if contador was a more luctrative target walsh would surely find the time to dig into his operacion puerto connections.

I read the Michael Ashenden article and one argument he makes is that LA could only have achieved this level of performance with EPO and 99 was the key year because there was no test. Then how did LA maintain these levels of performance (more or less) for the next 8 years when, presumably, EPO could be ruled out? It seems like you can't have it both ways. If he needed it then, he must need it now. Or if he doesn't need it now, he must not have needed it then. Personally, I would need to know a whole lot more about the laboratory tests that are mentioned in this article to be able to judge their uncertainty.

There is no doubt in my mind that Armstrong is a heck of an athlete. But that '99 Tour wasn't right at all. The extent to which he denied, lied and chose the path of "litigation" when evidence keep knocking persistently on all doors all point to that fact that he did it. Whatever you say about him, whatever he does in future with his new team, this will continue to haunt him all his life because of the actions he took.

To 7:28, EPO was the Go To product of choice up 'til 2000 (when a test was introduced allowing for detection) It was quick, simple, & obviously effective. Once a reliable test for EPO was in place, the smart athlete went back to the tried & true Autologous Blood Transfer. It requires a more systematic approach to doping. It's significantly harder to detect. The big danger was the need for professional help to do it safely & efficiently...Operación Puerto ring a bell? Go back to the 76 Olympics & Lasse Viren, even the 84 Olympics & the US Cycling team to see the impressive results of this type of doping. Back in the day, this type of blood doping wasn't even deemed illegal (due to it's untestable nature) but, at the least, considered unethical. Here's another connection people can due their own reasearch... Eddie B, the US Cycling team coach back in '84...who also was Lance's first mentor/coach when he began his cycling career in the late 80's.

The speed at which the Hater Boys/Girls with a Lance fixation and hard-on troll is amazing to me. Gotta love the spin, obsession for the masses who can't think for themselves and need to be hand fed their poison via net blogs.

I think its clear to us all that the people who drag their self important ass here to personally attack the author without reading any of the material above have nothing to offer in terms of intelligent argument.

Brilliant stuff mate! Its amazing that your average Lance Armstrong conversation doesn't involve any of this stuff. People talk of the same thing they know all the time. Well, what do you not know? And here it is.

I beg to differ mate! Absolutely vulgar,nasty stuff being dragged out of the recycle bin again and again. The agenda is to destroy one man, but funny thing is it destroys the instigators and the sport in the process. What a pity.

while i too am of the opinion that armstrong is not a nice guy and that he likely doped, i cannot say that i am convinced he took banned substances. none of what you presented is tangible evidence of his doping. it is all circumstantial and hearsay, therefore unlikely to sway a fan boy. unless and until there is a doping positive concomitant with and not retrospective to some particular race or season, few who worship at the armstrong alter will be swayed. even then, like with hamilton and landis, there will still be some people who will not change their opinions about their here.

Way to go! I can sense that this article is going to be a smashing hit for a long time to come. Whatever Armstrong does, I hope when people choose to elect him for a public office in America, they meticulously do their reading on the "other side" of his fame and fortune. And there are public officials in this country who want to observe a "Lance Armstrong Day" in his remembrance. What a complete joke!

4. A team Postal soigneur, Emma O'Reilly, picked up doping products for Armstrong. She also helped him hide injection marks with make up.

5. Another Postal soigneur listened to Bruyneel brief the team about their hematocrits right before the 1999 Tour. All the riders were just under the 50% rule.

6. As related by Stephen Swart, in 1995 Motorola's riders made an agreement that everyone on the Tour squad would use EPO. Armstrong was the one that was pushing everyone to do it.

7. The IM messaging between Andreu and Vaughters show that Armstrong was pushing everyone on Postal to dope. He would tell the riders that everyone does it.

8. In a phone conversation with Greg Lemond, Armstrong said that using EPO was no big deal and everyone does EPO.

9. After denying to the press that he had a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) to use any drug in the 1999 Tour, Armstrong tested positive for a corticosteroid. The team, as related by Emma O'Reilly, created a backdated TUE that was accepted by the UCI. Sylvia Shenk, when she was running for president of the UCI, revealed that later in 1999, Armstrong made an under the table payment to the UCI of five hundred thousand dollars.

I could go on and on and on. Saying there is no evidence is either ignorant, naive, or both.

First, great job collecting the material. Most of it was already out there.

Second, regardless of the tests that found EPO in his samples and whatever reasons Lance and his sycophants have for why all evidence pointing to him should be dismissed, what about his competitors. Hamilton, Ulrich, Basso, Mayo, Pantani, Landis and others I'm forgetting were ALL cheats (not to mention how many ex-Postal teammates?) yet Lance beat them all. If he beat them while doping (which the author suggests) then I get that, that makes sense. If he purports to have beaten all of these doped cyclists at the top of their sport while he was clean, I can't believe that for a second. Apples to apples, Lance might just be the best cyclist and have the best team tactics but competing against guys with the considerable advantage that doping provides and still beating them handily while he was clean? No chance. It would never happen.

The sycophants can only throw out the "haters" comment for anyone who doesn't buy the Lance myth. I think it's completely normal for a cycling fan to want the sport to be free of fraudulent wins and false idols.

Third, it's funny how many Lance puppets are so brash when hiding behind "Anonymous"

Finally, to Anonymous Coward at 7:28pm: Yes, there's been a test for rEPO since 2000. If people stopped using EPO then, what was CERA exactly? Are you naive enough to think that the testers have caught up to the technology that the dopers are using? They're years apart.

It's funny how the Armstrong admirers resort to ad hominem attacks to 'support' their tainted hero. Nothing like addressing the facts by pointing to the person who is telling them. Wonderful.

I've never purchased the Armstrong myth, mainly because he reduced himself to be a one race specialist and logic alone dictates that he doped. It's easy to avoid detection from the UCI vampires when you don't race that much, less need to dope, and it's hard to justify how a 'clean' Armstrong could beat other cyclists such as Ullrich and Basso who were doping.

For me the Armstrong myth is that he is kind of like Icarus in that his Daedalus, Dr. Ferrari, gave him the necessary 'wings' to fly on to a podium in a grand tour. I'd like to think it would be a matter of time before enough evidence melts the wax that holds the Armstrong/Icarus myth together, but because Armstrong has a thirst for litigation, that may not come to pass. Still, count me a non-believer in the 'talent' of Armstrong.

I don't really care what people did in the past. I do care what they are doing now. If you can't race clean then you shouldn't be racing at all. If you took drugs to win a race then you didn't the win. The drugs won the race, and you are still a looser.

I sincerely suspect that Lance couldn't take the guilt he had in him for doing what he did, yet lying in front of the press. That's why he made this comeback to prove that he can race and win without doping. But even that decision might come back to hit him. I think he's going to get thrashed by Contador big time next year however well he does.

Magilla : Thank you for the tip. I have the phono convo between Lemond and Stephanie. The only reason I didn't put it on here was because the quality is not the best. But the idea seems really good for transparency. In a few minutes, it will be uploaded onto the site. Thanks.

The article from Science of Sport on the manufacturing of Armstrong's "efficiency" is just outright alarming. And if I recall, Discovery Channel went on to shamelessly use a lot of that junk to make the "The Science of Lance Armstrong" soap opera. Can you imagine the kind of fraud people are being subjected to? How much money did this guy make off all this stuff?

Author, seems you've got some serious obsessive problems with a particular person and his past and ego problems of your own to hash out. The crap you lay out is heresay to get people on your mindwasting bandwagon. Who is the one acting high and mighty, now? Anyway, whoever is without sin, shall cast the first stone. Author, is that you? Boy, you sure are impressive - (NOT)!! If you have anything really to offer, you'd hop off this silly time-wasting bandwagon and get on with high integrity cycling stuff.

Sorry Ron, but I'm with some of your comment-posters here. USADA, CAS, etc. have never convicted Lance Armstrong of performance enhancing drugs use. And yet, just about every tour in the last so-many-years at least 5 cyclists are being convicted of this. Lance Armstrong has to be the most widely-tested athlete in the world, and no one has been able to come up with sufficient evidence that he is a user.

It seems the opposite is in play when it comes to Lance; guilty until proven innocent. In my mind and heart, Lance Armstrong is a hero and until he is convicted in court or in front of some board, he will always be innocent. I also feel that Floyd Landis is innocent too.

@ Zach : Thanks for reading. Not testing positive does not establish that an athlete did not use banned substances. Well, I don't want to squash the image you have of your hero so lets agree to disagree. However, if do want to probe into the matter and do critical reading, this is helpful : http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

C'mon people. Let's be a little more open minded towards a rational discussion. Coming on such a high quality bike blog and using foul language and name calling certainly does not prove that any of the stuff mentioned in the article about Armstrong is false. And that's a bigger waste of time than anyone "bleating" about the forgotten past.

Dear Ron, I cannot express how much I love your blog and have been a long time reader since 2007. While this article is excellent and the links offered are great beyond doubt, my advice you on this matter is ... never risk your reputation to do something the other clowns won't understand. Like Abraham Lincoln said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

The common procedure, according to athletes who have come clean after getting busted, is to withdraw one's own blood, use a centrifuge to isolate and collect the oxygen-rich red blood cells, and then reinject the more concentrated blood mid-race. Such methods are banned, but there is no reliable laboratory test if athletes use their own blood. No one can prove Lance Armstrong did not do this.

The mountain of evidence linked here strongly points to the fact that the case for Armstrong being a fraud is very strong. It's not completely conclusive. Investigative journalism, science and the honesty and integrity of the people within the cycling ranks will make it conclusive in future. The race is on.

When everyone is jockeying for a piece of the pie how can a rational discussion be held?

I propose we let every pseudo scientist, bitter acquaintance, rival, jilted lover, blogger, anonymous forum poster…etc (all with personal agendas) accuse, destroy lives and render whatever punishment they see fit to their hearts content. Let's all get under the same Orwellian microscope.

DidiAfter many years within this industry I fear you'll be hard pressed to find the illusive 'honesty and integrity of people within the cycling ranks.' There is profound jealousy and backstabbing at cyclings core.

Ok, so let's step away from '99 for a minute.Let's put that aside and come back to it.

Let's talk about 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2009; and all the testing that this guy received in that time.

Are you suggesting that he just got lucky during all those tests?Or, maybe the tests are just not very good? Or; somehow this one guy is utilizing some doping methodology that all other athletes on earth have not, or are not, taking part in?

Please remember, for example, the entire TMobile team had a doping system that was fully supported by Doctors at the Freiburg University Clinic!They had an entire battery of doctors from a university supporting them and what was the result? Nadda. . . .

All the evidence you are presenting is regarding a very limited scope of time. Conversely, there now is a huge amount of data spanning over 7 years which supports one, or all of - 1- This guy must be amazingly lucky.2- The testing methodology is flawed. 3- This one athlete has figured out a methodology which enhances his abilities to supreme levels while going undetected for the vast majority of his career.

Before you say it must be '3'; how is that possible? Eddie B? Are you serious? 1980's technology? Stopping in with a couple overly famed doping doctors throughout his career? That can't possibly be enough for a the success he has had.So what is it?

Or, are you gonna just talk about '99 and try to blanket his whole career after '99 with that?

Let's address your specific question. You asked me to talk about the testing Armstrong received from 2000-2009.

While I cannot talk about the values that are not available to public, let's talk about the testing he received from August 2008-August 2009.

Question to you today is : Given Armstrong's values that were posted on a public website by Livestrong.com, why did he post the lowest values for reticulocyte blood count in that entire one year, right in the month of the Tour de France 2009? HINT : He's not anemic. I don't think so, last I heard.

A semi-conductor engineer by the name of Dan Connelly went ahead and put all those numbers into an Excel spreadsheet to come out with a nice looking graph. Here is the chart. Look at it and study it and let's discuss why the count was the lowest exactly during the month of the Tour. I'm not throwing any ideas in the air at this point, but I'd like to know what you think. Statistically, one could accept physiological fluctuations as a normal variation from day to day. But for a whole month at its lowest? Surely I'm not the first to go, "wait a minute..."

Besides all that, you asked me why I think he's gotten away all these years and achieved tremendous success in the sport. The answer is simple. He knows how to beat the system. The Scribd report included in the article talks about his strategies pretty well.

Financially, the cycling industry gains tremendously from the newcomers to the sport who take Lance Armstrong for an "absolutely mindblowing righteous hero", and from other enthusiasts who are content to sit in ignorance with their heads dug into their sandpits because of his surviorship status and other so-called "ideals" reflected off him, that they feel are rigid and cannot be challenged. Truth be told, Lance is a money maker for everyone in the industry, its big business. The people who cheat along with him, i.e, the ones who hide his biggest secrets, won't bite the hand that fed them. Which is why to me, the silence on Armstrong in the industry and among the highest in sporting circles is pretty self-explanatory. It's all about money. Big money. But when you're bold enough to go against the tide, you can even lose your job, maybe even get chased in a big bicycle race and get verbally humiliated, as has happened to Simeoni. Another example : TREK firing Lemond because he had the manhood to ask the right questions at the right time has to be one of the most disgracing acts in cycling industry this year. I respect TREK only for a couple of reasons - I greatly admire the entrepreneurship of the late Mr. Burke Sr. I also happen to ride a 4 year old TREK fixed gear bike that has served me very well in the most troubling times. That's that...

Now who in the world knows how many people will lose money, their careers and all their reputations when the true Lance Armstrong is exposed. Maybe the whole sport of cycling itself will crumble like a breadcrumb.

To tell you the truth, I fear that moment as much as I despise what cycling would be if left in the current and past state.

This is why I like coming to your site, which I do often even if I do not comment very much.

Ok to answer to your point of blood - The link you provided in fact went to a forum.

One of the later comments in the forum posted this link to what I feel is a very rational analysis - http://www.localcyclist.com/2009/09/a-tale-of-two-cyclists/

At the end of the report, they say 2 main things - 1 - "There is also the possibility of a synergistic effect, but it would be difficult to find data that supports this argument while excluding the possibility of manipulation at the same time."

See that is the key, in my opinion. How many other cyclists can you review the blood data from the same points in history after riding on the same course? Um, zero?

How much data has been accumulated regarding the effects a Grand Tour has on a top athlete focusing on this same information? Well I've found none to speak of, but really only speculation from doctors stating what the body would 'theoretically' do under these circumstances.

Which, I interpret about the same as when I'm told what my fat % 'should' be as this speculation is equally unfounded. So, basically a lot of people (including doctors) are interpreting data with no actual reference point to benchmark other then their own speculation.

Do I think the results are odd? Yes, but I really have not data to present as to a root cause, or that his blood is all jacked up.

Again, if this is so easy to do, whey aren’t more guys doing it? The data has shown the entire peloton has slowed down over the last few years and it is now again common for most to have a ‘bad’ day in a Grand Tour. Even the man you speak of was not very sharp compared to how he was in the past.

2 – “The point isn’t to answer the question of whether Lance Armstrong is clean or not. What is more important is to begin to demystify the Bio Passport. Hopefully, the type of discussion above can give the average enthusiast the tools and confidence to start looking at the data themselves. Otherwise, we’re stuck with the stories that begin and end with so and so released data, and sanctions so after the fact that no one ever wins.”

This I agree with 100%, as I also agree with the basic concept of the Bio Passport and the essential philosophy Don Catlin currently is promoting.

I would also like to rebut your overly simple belief that this all comes down to money and everyone is in on the charade. Four letters – AFLD. Those guys have been trying to catch this guy for ever and maybe they would have if they consistently followed their SOP’s!In reality, the amount of money is not all that much when you compare it to FIFA, the NFL, Baseball, NBA, and so on. Please, let’s keep perspective on all this about money. But again, nobody in the current peloton has ever been able to avoid getting caught with the level of success this man has possibly had. So how do you explain this?

Lastly, about the two people you reference – Simeoni, whom even having the Italian national Jersey didn’t overcome his comments in the media. They guy cut his own throat about getting into the Giro by having such an overwhelming ‘I deserve’ attitude which got him a contract with a Non-PT team and then eventually those who run the Giro simply rejected his inclusion.Not because he is noble, but because he is a jackass.

Lemond, whom in my mind has an equally high amount of explaining during his carreer, which you could build a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to frame him as simply a doper during his years racing. Did he? I have no idea, but that TT he won on the Champs stood as the fastest for a long, long time and entirely through what is said to be the darkest of doping years.

In the end, Trek was paying Lemond, just as they were with Gary Fisher & Keith Bontrager, to be a figure head. The difference was that Lemond did not sell his company to Trek, he only Licenced it which give Trek the right not to renew the license agreement whenever is comes up. In honesty, they had built up their own brand so much they really no longer needed it in my opinion. A really good perspective in all this is attained from the link below – http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/Trek_dumps_LeMond_analysis_309.html

Sometime Ron and I don't get along but I'm glad we agree on this. I have always had my doubt about Lance Armstrong's clean record even if he never tested positive. The data supporting his doping is large. Combined with his endless enraged fans who will berate you if you question their hero man god. I never understood the Lance love. From what you read, he is a world class ass. Who leaves his wife after she stuck around when you were dying?

Also, GWB was never convicted of war crimes but it doesn't mean he did not commit them. Same idea!

The TT in the final stage of the '89 Tour was a point to point course with an elevation loss...The speed was a reflection of the course...

'89 was before the explosion of EPO use in the peleton...

You dismiss Eddie B...where did you think the US Cycling team learned about Autologous Blood Transfers from? No, it's not 80's tech...it goes back to the 70's (Lasse Viren). Do your home work...what is new is old...tried & true & much harder to detect...It's just hard to keep the lid on this type of doping when you need specialized help to pull it off (Why do you think Kohl & his buds set up a friggin clinic in a rented apartment...to try & keep things quiet) A lot harder to do in a clinic.

EPO allows for a simpler, quicker result...it's just a case of old school ABT is still harder to detect (now).. Since there is a need to cover one's steps ABT is simply a safer bet for a doper.

Why do you seem to forget...Basso never failed a test, Ullrich, ditto...Mancebo...ditto, Botero...ditto, Jeez...Marion Jones never failed a test! Passing a drug test is no amazing feat. As Christiane Ayotte (WADA Lab, Montreal) relates, drug testing is a game of catchup...& they can only test for what they are looking for. Generally you need to be sloppy or dumb to get caught.

Only once in a blue moon does the testers get one over the cheats (CERA being a notable example) Lance has the ways & means to be on a level other cyclist could only dream about.

Do you think Lance & his people would be sloppy enough to get involved in a doping circle ala Puerto?

You may dismiss all as some sort of conspiracy theory..but I suggest you do some serious research into US track & field during the late 80's...Disgusting, the level of coverup done in the name of marquee athletes.

Cycling is huge money worldwide (last I checked the world extends beyond the US)...

There is a vested interest to keep certain shit in the pot.

Lance is a business, a very big business...do you not think there is a vested interest to keep him "Clean"? To dismiss what has been presented by Ron is naive beyond belief.

Anonymous @ 10:17 PM - Usually, when a TT has an elevation loss, times actually end up closer and the winner is not 33 seconds ahead of the next placed person.Say all you want about Fignon being foolish, but I’m sure Marie was going gang busters. Those fancy aerobars and helmet doesn’t explain all the time he gained. Eddie B. – You fail to remember he coached Greg also. In fact ABT in not that hard to detect if you follow the testing methodology Don Catlin is proposing; which is basically a SPC Run Chart tracking blood for all you Engineering/QA guys out there. Yes, Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Botero, & Marion Jones didn’t every fail a test. Who’s fault is that? I’d say it is the WADA and there pathetic excuse for a testing methodology which ensures absolutely no statistical stability.I am sorry, but to assume this one man has a support system that is significantly more advanced then anyone, or any team, out there because you think Oakley & Nike are funding it is just plain ridiculous. But yes, I do think he is not as stupid as to get involved with Puerto. Did you every read his first book? When the guy got cancer, he didn’t call Eddie B., he and started looking for the best minds in all of medicine. So, I am not saying he did, or did not do anything. I am asking why the guy has never had a blip on the radar during 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2009? For all those tests he has been required to take, and if everyone feels as many of you do. Why? Until he has; he hasn’t. Period. - Ryan

Ryan, you seem like a smart guy. But the following straw-man argument and reference to Lance's own book just doesn't make the grade.

"Did you every read his first book?When the guy got cancer, he didn’t call Eddie B., he started looking for the best minds in all of medicine."

The case of Marion Jones and the Balco scandal is instructive. Designer drugs years ahead of testing, only exposed because a coach who doped his athletes (Trevor Graham) SENT A SYRINGE TO CATLIN'S LAB to "narc" on some competitors. We would never have heard of it, otherwise, and the resulting scandals in track, not to mention BASEBALL would never have happened. Lance is an even bigger brand than Marion or Mark McGwire, and is much smarter to boot. No one else has the resources or the guts to turn on him at this point, and that's sadly what it would take at this point to clean up the sport from the top down.

Motivation had more to do with a 33 sec gap over T Marie...TM wasn't in the hunt for the GC on the last stage...sure motivated to get a win, but after 3 wks you usually see only the guys who have the most to gain blow the wad. So I see no point made...

ABT isn't easy to detect...if it was it would be detected easily& constantly...On that note, in the grand scheme neither is EPO...If it was we'd see (or have seen) many more positives. Maybe if they follow Catlin's methodology, maybe...but the point is moot...Blame the labs...Yeah, like you state, the labs haven't caught Basso, et all...Neither Lance. The fact remains, yeah, Lance hasn't been caught***, & neither has Ullrich, Basso, Riis, ......and on & on.There has never been a blip on the tests of Riis, Ullrich, etc, etc... So unfortunately, that tired argument (Lance clean)doesn't worth mention (but it is always brought up...YAWN!) Face it the dopers always have a significant lead over the testers. Testing evolves, but not as fast as the dopers methods. (You can only test for what you are looking for!...)

I'm not sure what your point regarding Lance being diagnosed with cancer & calling Eddie B is...I don't think a eastern bloc cycling coach is the person to look to regarding cancer treatment. No Lance did seek out the best people in his cancer fight...just the way he seeks out the best people to help him win the tour (by any means necesary ... connect the dots)Thanks for helping me make my point.

If you don't think the business of Lance doesn't have some serious clout...That's just naive. Worse has been done for less. Age Group riders have doped for nothing more than product & ego.

Do you honestly think there isn't the will, means, know how, & collusion at work?

Lance certainly doesn't need these people to fund a program. He's not funding a Space program. But it helps if sponsors don't ask questions, or stick their collective heads in the sand. Lance is certainly smart enough to keep the circle very small (no way in hell, his team mates where on His program after '99...) He is too smart to get involved with a doping ring...beside who want to order off the menu(?)

I don't think you can find an athlete with more money tied to his miracle image. An image that is vital to his mystique. If Lance was to be proven a doper, "POP" all is lost, he becomes a sham...and millions upon millions of dollars evaporate from the coffers of the above...If, say, Contidor was to test positive...there would be a collective yawn in the eye of the general public, barely a ripple...The cycling fan may get there chamois in a knot, but Joe public would care less.

Lance would be front page news worldwide. Not a good scenario for cycling & anyone connected with him.

If questions are not asked, no answers will come. In Lance's case, his offence is his best defence. He plants seeds of doubt into the general media constantly, defusing a given situation, especially when dealing with the (detached) general media & public. Feed the information!

There is a need to expose a fraud...If he is clean, he will prove as much...but without questions (in the face of mounting evidence)how is one to find out.

I'm thankful people like Ron have chosen to Ask questions & present information.

Haha brilliant post and you know what, I dream of the day the Yes Men will get to teach the Livestrong Corporation a lesson by issuing a public apology to all Lance Armstrong fans. I mean, could we expect any remedy for a sporting fraud? One hoax could be battled with another. I don't see a wrong there.

You have shared here excellent information.I appriciate your way of giving knowledge. i visited a site that is providing a good features for Audio and video services and Noleggio Sony z1to see more new rservices of udio and video services you can visit that site.

Job well done. It is so important to note that Lance refutes by smear not by fact.How in the world did you get that Irish interview? I've been wanting it and thanks to you, I now have it.Keep up the good work.

I'm was racing down the Interstate, & end up losing control, and skitter into the ditch. The State police show up and question my speed."Looks like you were speeding""I wasn't speeding" "We can see a 400ft skid mark on the pavement".

There seems to be evidence that backs up their view.

"But did you get me on radar?""Did you witness the crash?","No?" "Then I wasn't speeding"

The evidence points to another reality. but with only a small but telling piece of evidence, no charges are able to be laid.

Anon @ 10:17 : Like Greg Lemond has made a very good point, circumstantial evidence have put people to death in the past. If you have enough circumstantial evidence against someone's dishonesty and corruption, you don't need the smoking gun to bring him hell. What are you waiting for anyway? Seems like you're hesitant to open your eyes and ears.

One thing I have realized going through these comments is that out of 80 some responses, none had the courage to debate any of the findings actually reported, through links and audio clips, which I really hoped for. With that news, I'm actually even more disappointed.

It perhaps proves that people who side with Armstrong and believes he's clean are really hesitant to wash off their what they know with what they don't know. The castle metaphor was perhaps apt.

"One thing I have realized going through these comments is that out of 80 some responses, none had the courage to debate any of the findings actually reported, through links and audio clips, which I really hoped for..."

Surely you weren't expecting any kind of meaningful debate on the issues raised? Because the facts clearly imply Armstrong's guilt, leaving his supporters with nothing with which to defend him in any kind of reasoned debate.

Joe Papp : Sorry if I have ignored you and I don't know how that happened. It is a tremendous honor to have your presence here.

Now you've been there done that...been a journey man pro, fought the ranks. The system forced you into drug taking, you lost out, you got caught and admitted your mistakes. I'm sure the life on drugs without getting caught was something but the conscience fought back in the end and it won. Having been in that kind of environment, tell us how the guys who do this stuff evade the doping authorities? How do they "beat the system?"

Could you briefly outline some of their methods? The big questions that's being thrown up by Ryan above is...why hasn't Lance Armstrong been caught from 2001-2006 for anything? If someone like Lance has been getting around the system, how do you suspect he'd be doing it? I'm pressing you to share with us what you know.

Yep - I agree. The muscular efficiency calculations have been widely criticized to the point the Ashenden and others tried to get the editors to withdraw the paper because of scientific fraud. The basic scientific principles used in the remainder of the calculations are seriously flawed. He had preseason body weights and power outputs for 1992, 1993 and 1999. But instead of using Lance's preseason body weight for 1999, he uses an estimated and unmeasured racing weight of 72kg (provided by Armstrong, to which Armstrong admitted in the SCA trial that the lowest he has weighed was closer to 74kg). So based on this single inappropriate use of data, Lance's "incredible" 18% improvement in his power-to-weight ratio from 1992 to 1999 actually becomes a 1.6% improvement from 1993 to 1999 if the correct figures were used. Also, his 10kg weight loss following cancer treatment, which many have attributed to his success in the mountains, is totally false because Coyle's paper actually shows that Lance maintained his body weight (or was about 1kg heavier in 1999 compared to 1992 and 1993).

Great compendium of info. This will definitely fill the void left by the retiring of Cyclingfansanonymous.

It really does amaze me how defensive people get about this information without ever addressing any of the claims.

To the people who say LA never tested positive in all his years - I have some sad news for you.

All of the winner of all the grand tours and classics that were later found to be using EPO (nearly every winner) and other drugs - they never tested positive during the races either. But don't take my word for it go to Wikipedia and type in doping cases in cycling.And one more thing to people who are bummed about finding out their hero is a cheat - don't fret many of the people commenting on this blog felt the same way for years until the pile of evidence just got too big...

Thanks Ron. This site has always been one of my favourites for it's sound reasoning and critical thought. Now, you've opened the Pandora's Box of cycling, but have truly outdone yourself. It's good to know that there are still some folks with fully functioning brains out there.

@Betsy_B : Its questionable knowledge? What questions have you asked so far that is relevant to the discussion? Having brought nil to the topic, I think it's a stretch for you to say that. :) Please comment if you have something logical to say about Armstrong's doping history. If you're here to attack author or others on the comments page for exposing lies, feel free to not type at all.

Warren: What you and your ilk are ‘exposing’ is not what you think. Your condescending attitude towards someone who thinks differently than you is telling.

Ron’s blatantly contentious posting of another’s comments to him on a completely different forum were not appropriate. The sad thing is this action was not a one-off and was completely unfair to the poster who was unaware and had no opportunity to reply.

A nasty undercurrent indeed and anyone with any degree of decency knows that. If you want people to take you seriously, be above board in your actions. Enough said.

The Cozy Beehive blog link is a good summary of the case against Lance. In short summary:- Steroids during his one day racing career (sudden body change, facial features, and statements from Frankie Andreau)- Backdated TUE for steroids when he tested positive to steroid use- No positive to hCG (testicular cancer marker and performance enhacing drug) despite extremely high levels (109,000; normal < 0.5); Why no positive? Payoff or UCI coverup?- Confession to performance enhancing drug use to doctor; witnessed by 9 people including Betsy and Frankie Andreau- Transformation from a one-day rider to a stage racer: unprecedented- Exclusive association with Dr. Ferrari, infamous doping doctor- Six positive tests to EPO in the 1999 Tour de France; never suspended because these were research results which were revealed through some good investigative journalism- Lance's $500,000 "donation" to the UCI for drug testing equipment; clear conflict of interest by the UCI; bribe?- Emma O'Reilly, Lance's masseuse, testified to Lance's doping- Subpoened text message between Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreau talking about how Lance and Bruyneel dumped Floyd Landis's blood transfusion down a toilet as punishment for leaving Discovery for Phonak- Hematocrit and reticulocyte results from this year's Tour de France highly suggestive of autologous blood transfusion (Lance then removed these results from the Livestrong website)

Great post and great summary by the poster above. The people who resort to personal accusations and name calling actually think that the author may have written some kind of novel here. Infact, all these are facts collected to one place , its a compendium of eye witness testimonies, cell phone transcripts and scientific studies that we all knew already existed but the thing that hits you is seeing that its all in one place, and the folks who resort to name calling and verbal abuse for the soundbites just can't take any of the facts presented or counter it by providing evidence that it's not true. I'd like to see how one provides a counter evidence against Betsy Andreu's testimony, one of Lance's former close friends. No one can.

American people go by the American criminal justice system's buzz words - "innocent until proven guilty", "innocent until taken to court" and so on...

But all one really needs to do is independently apply the American criminal justice system method to an independent study of LA. Why not? Nothing says you can't do it. You have every right to as you're a cycling fan.

So I outline the 3 basic steps of how to do this :

Step 1 : Come to a discussion on LA's doping, such as my article referenced above, completely assuming that Lance Armstrong is innocent. I think that's a fairly good starting point considering how good an athlete he is and how "morally" sound he is due to the fact he's a donor to cancer charity and so on. I didn't say that but that's what normally most people think of him.

Step 2 : Okay. Just like in a criminal court, think of yourself as judge, and be open minded in hearing the evidence from the jury by listening to and reading lists of evidence that points to his fraud, unethical behavior and sporting malpractice in cycling.

Step 3 : If the mountain of evidence collects like a stack of cards one on top of the other, not once but by ten times, twenty times etc over the course of years..statistically, it would mean only one thing : Given one's initial assumption of Lance's complete innocence, the collection of facts listed about him from eye witness accounts, drug experts, scientists, investigative journalists, former teammates, friends, whistle blowers, paper transcripts etc, the presumption of innocence of Lance Armstrong has to be, at the very minimum, rectified and changed if not made conclusively false. If the evidence is overwhelming, you discover and say to yourself that such an outcome is highly rare and highly unusual to happen given the presumption of innocence. Hence Armstrong is guilty and not a truthful athlete.

My biggest issue in this whole affair, regardless what the reader's conclusion after doing the above steps are, is that most people who are adversely affected by the facts presented for LA's actions hardly do any of the above. They are more likely to resort to common cheap techniques such as verbal abuse and name calling and diverting attention from the topic of primary interest to other topics of lesser importance. One reason I think is that people not ready to change their mindset and be open-minded in the first place. They like to construct their own tales around their hero and build castles around it. It looks beautiful from the outside and they want it to stay that way. No one should disturb it. Often, the status quo trumps logic and rationale.

I'm not a cyclist, but I became enthralled with this issue listening to Competitors Radio podcasts with David Walsh, Betsy Andreu and others while recovering from elbow surgery, sustained in a running fall. I think Armstrong was dirty.

But I wanted to post about a telling incident involving Armstrong shortly before the 2009 NYC Marathon, as recorded by a fellow blogger. Armstrong decided to crash a forum for three of the leading women marathoners in history, and the New York Times let him have his little ego trip.

Joe : Thanks for the article. Interesting read. Certainly he has complexities in his character, like everyone does. But how he manages to keep showing the public how much of a jerk he can be is beyond me. I really wish he had a sensible personal advisor to tell him how to behave in public, when to shut up, what to say, how to say it, how to treat others, when to own up to mistakes, when not to lie. He will get no respect from a lot of people. The yes men around him will keep him in limited company.

I'm sure LeMond had a needle in his arm too, they just did'nt test back then. LeMond should go rabbit hunting with Dick Cheney. LeMond has NO credibility. If he is illegally taping phone calls, without the other persons knowledge. Come on, were using illegally obtained evidence to prove someone is a doper. LeMond is a cry baby. Sounds like If they are all dopers then I guess he's the fastest rider out of all of them. I hear a lot about UFO's and the evidence presented. But I haveyet to see a flying saucer hovering over my house. I have reservations, but being the most tested person in professional sports, why no positive test.

Good summary. Too, I actually think opinions on Armstrong are split, whether in America, Great Britain and I've found it interesting to read the Armstrong book reviews on the French Amazon website.

Some of these responses one reads kind of points to long time-wise, there seems to be a systematic defense in my opinion that comes out for Armstrong and who knows who does it. This web page, a blog and seems to come out with the more loose hostile responses similar in nature to what Bassons went through where he told in a controlled voice to Lance why he responded to newspaper reporters and how it was important to him the sport was clean and to this Bassons got a 'FU' per the Walsh books.

The Armstrong camp would like to call evidence presented tenuous at best but isn't it the Armstrong camp that brings out the excuses, that the substance found in his system in 1999 and later given the TUE status was actually valid per a backdated prescription or how about the journalists that followed the trash throwing workers of USPS and found the 160 syringes and the activogen, then the activogen became for one of the USPS' employees' diabetes.

I'm suspicious of those that wish to quell any talk on this. It's no big deal to talk of past sports events, whatever they are and questionable incidences as they are part of the landscape. But no, here, people who talk about these things are said to be recycling old material, "there's nothing new here" junk.

I mean if I had some of these questions over my head, it'd be people's rights to know what is going on.

Sorry to add on, the detractors are just bloody confusing. The same old attacks always come out, that rickety bitter ol' man Lemond or BTF, blame the French though digging below the surface, they seem split like I alluded to.

Is this not strongarming someone about as much as possible bringing quotes from Abe Lincoln and "You know, I generally enjoy your website BUT..."; hey and it's old news too, what Walsh wrote, hmmn, that book was pretty much offlimits in the USA, I even ordered I believe through Amazon.co.uk. I don't think you walk into our big books stores here and readily can or could when new find the book. So the detractors are a bit nutty to hear. Okay, maybe some of them are writing from the United Kingdom but I see American type spelling and allusions all the same.

It's nuts, it's no big deal if people talk about whether Geoff Hurst's 1966 ball went across the line for a goal in the game vs. West Germany (and I know per Brian Glanville that West Germany in fact, got their 2nd tying goal on a freekick which should not have been given in the first place), now that game with Argentina which I don't know compels me more but I have not witnessed it or seen videos of it. It really speaks to the matter that the same 'old' attacks are brought out by in fact, the Lance defenders and pretty recognizable too as well as technique. Why get so prickly?

That being said ,if he ,or ANY professional cyclist gets banned ,it wouldn't surprise me.

The sport of cycling is guilty of a doping problem ,and has had issue with it for a very long time.There will always be doping (as in any top sport) as long as there are new drugs , ways to defeat tests ,those that see an advantage to doing it ,and profits to be made in and around the sport.So,who's the bad guy?The fans ,organisers ,sponsors ,cyclists ,doctors ,coaches ,drug manufacturers ,pharmacies ,etc?Or , are they they victims?It seems to me to be a sickness that extends beyond 1 individual.

Those that are clamouring for blood ,as well as the motive to this site ,should consider what they are really wanting to happen to the sport.Is the intent to make cycling clean?Or ,to see someone fry?

As others have said, I find this to be a public service and am grateful for this complete and clear compilation. I don't consider myself to be a "Lance hater". I used to be a big fan, until about 2003. After his fifth victory, I accepted that he was doping but still had some admiration for him because it was so obvious that everyone was doping and he won with panache. Over the past years however, it has become increasingly evident that he is a totally corrupt megalomaniac monster. I agree with Greg Lemond: cycling is about to get a lot better.

Great read and great job chronicling this fallacy. I linked to here from your post on the comments section in the WSJ titled "Blood Brothers." This post is something that all the "worshipers," need to see for themselves...especially the bozo who posted prior to me. WAKE UP!!!

I am impressed with the detail & thoroughness in collating information but not with the scientific process to make a conclusion.

I believe it's possible Armstrong was doping..however, it is also possible he was not.

As a general cycling fan (not an Armstrong fan) I have tried to keep an open mind.

The 'evidence' you provide is all speculative and heresay. For example, Floyd Landis just admitted he lied consistantly for 2 years...why believe him now with his "OK I did it...but these other guys did it too so it's not fair to punish me" act?

I was a huge Floyd Landis fan and very dissapointed when he tested positive. I believed (wanted to believe) that he was right and the test was messed up. When the second sample was also positive I had doubts.

Either he did it and so did other he is naming or he is confessing a way to get back credibility...he already served his punishment.

As for Armstrong, I believe eithe he is clean or the cycling authorities turned a blind eye because they thought it was better for them & the sponsors. If he did everthing alleged, how can he possibly have gotten away with it for 7+ years ans suddenly after he retires Floyd Landis/team gets sloppy? The stage winner and the yellow jersey get tested every stage, every year!

Either way, as I said, I like the detail and passion of this site but can't agree with the conclusion based only on "evidence" that would NEVER stand scruitiny in any country that observed "due process" and "chain of evidence".

Those protections are in place for a reason...it's easy for anyone to accuse anyone else of anything without evidence. Then the result is based on who we prefer to believe or who we like/dislike the most.

There are essentially two reasonable schools of thought regarding Lance Armstrong’s doping, both of which assume that he used a smorgasbord of banned performance-enhancing drugs and procedures to win seven Tours de France. The third, that Lance rode clean, is untenable in light of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence presented above or in David Walsh, From Lance to Landis.

The first is that it doesn’t really matter; PEDs use is rampant in professional sports, which is essentially a part of the entertainment industry, so why single out this poor guy and waste so much taxpayer money investigating something so far in the past? Let sleeping dogs lie. Plus he’s a cancer survivor, done a lot of good in support of cancer research and treatment – essentially a hero to a lot of people. So what if he doped? Why discredit Lance and thereby the Cancer Cause ostensibly for nothing gained?

The second is that it does matter. The fact that everyone else doped when Lance rode doesn’t give him a free pass to lie about his systematic doping and use the good he’s done as a shield to cover his cheating ways. This school of thought views professional sports not as entertainment but as the pinnacle of amateur athletics. In this view sports are seen as essential to the fabric of society, endeavors that most of us compete in when young and which are meant to foster character and sportsmanship and teach the value of hard work and commitment to fair play. Those who rise to the pinnacle are meant to be seen as exemplars, particularly by our children, of the benefits that a commitment to those values brings. They are what made and make America great. Cheating and lying and defrauding in order to win and make money at any cost, moral or otherwise, directly undermine all good things that amateur athletics are meant to represent.

It’s true that PEDs use is widespread in sports but so is corruption in business and politics. Should we give Wall Street crooks and lying politicians a pass because they work among so many other slime balls? What if they also do some good for society? Imagine that a corrupt businessman gives a lot of time and money to the war against cancer. What if he also is himself a cancer survivor and started a foundation dedicated to fighting the scourge? Would that entitle him to a free pass? If the answer is no, then what, exactly, is the difference between Lance Armstrong and Michael Milken?

Lance Armstrong should be brought to justice. For the same reason the authorities should pursue corruption in all other areas of society that actually matter. For the sake of children who compete and hold those at the pinnacle in such high regard. To give Lance a pass is to surrender to cynicism, to give up on the high ideals of amateur athletics – crystallized in the Olympic Ideal – and to believe that they have no real connection to the world of professional sports.

All elite sportsmen today take different substances to increase their potential to be a winner, some of these are declared as illegal and we refer to it as doping, but what about the legal substances? Aren't those a part of cheating as they also do things to your body that you can not achieve by normal training?

The sad thing with cycling is that in the past all contenders for the victory in tour the france were in someway doped.

Independently from if Lance is guilty or not, i would like people to see what he is doing with his fame, he is using it in such a noble way that i guess that in the end he will have given back to humanity more than most of us together will achieve in our lifetime.

I believe in clean sport, but to judge from what we see today it is an impossible task, my hat off for all off you that work with this every day.

Lance's cancer most likely came from the overuse of steroids. EPO was not available in Europe until the late eighties and early nineties. The use of EPO was not perfected by Lance's good friend Dr. Ferrari for a few years (many Dutch cyclists died from EPO use). This was well after Greg LeMond's departure from the sport.

Lance is a bully and just an all around not nice person. He is defended by the management at his foundations because there are some hefty pay checks being cashed.

Hi Ron,Great post!For all those poisoned by the Lance-Empire propoganda, whose only response is the regurgitated 'but everyone was doing it' my response is this; yes, others were undoubtedly doping and a few have admitted to doing so, however Lance continues to deny his guilt despite overwhelming evidence otherwise in order to line his pockets and satisfy his narcissism.It makes me sad that someone like him continues to be idolised when we have true, clean, cycling heroes live Cav and Wiggins who will ultimately suffer when Lance's smokescreens disintegrate and his empire comes crumbling down around him, taking with it any tiny bit of integrity pro-cycling had left...